Grandparents' and domestic helpers' childcare support: Implications for <scp>well‐being</scp> in Asian families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To investigate whether childcare support from grandparents and domestic helpers is associated with family well‐being in Singapore, with a focus on parent and child psychological well‐being as well as the quality of interactions and relationships within the family. Background Research on the implications of childcare support from maternal grandparents, paternal grandparents, and domestic helpers for family well‐being remains a gap in the literature. This involvement could enhance family well‐being through instrumental assistance and emotional encouragement in childcare. However, it could also create a negative emotional climate for families if the relationship of the mother with the grandparents or domestic helper is marked by conflict. Method This study used questionnaire data from 615 mother–child dyads from the birth cohort, Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes. The exposure variable was children's caregiving arrangements assessed at child ages 4.5 and 6 years, and the outcome variables were maternal well‐being, maternal parenting, and family functioning measured at concurrent assessments, and child well‐being assessed at age 10 years. Results Childcare support from maternal grandparents, but not from paternal grandparents or domestic helpers, showed concurrent associations with warmer parenting by mothers at child ages 4.5 and 6 years. Early childcare support from domestic helpers at child age 6 years predicted higher depressive symptoms in children at age 10 years. Conclusion Our findings suggest that childcare support from maternal grandparents, who are most likely to share a close bond and value system with mothers, could be most beneficial for families in Singapore.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".